For Republican members of Congress and cable news pundits, a cap on the earnings of the super rich might sound like a dystopian nightmare. Yet, as author Sam Pizzigati argues in his new book, The Case for A Maximum Wage, those who are not ardent free marketeers should give the idea some serious consideration—not only as a desirable policy, but also one that might be more practical than some might imagine.
Tax the Rich, or Shoot Em, and play Robin Hood.
Bring back the post-WW II tax table where 90% is taxed over the first million.
What in fact needed is a tax on WEALTH and not just income. They have very high tax rates in Sweden yet there just about the same degree of wealth inequality because wealth already gained is not subject to an income tax.
When that tax rate at 90 percent you still had poverty in the USA while at the same time people like Rockefeller had net worths deemed among the highest in History.
(inflation adjusted net Worths for Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford respectively were 340 billion , 310 billion and 200 billion)
I don’t really get the proposal here since very little income going to the wealthy is from wages. For example, Jeff Bezos had a salary of only $81,840 in 2017 so a maximum wage would have zero effect on him. He makes his money because he owns 80 million shares of Amazon stock.
There is just a tad disconnect between the ‘ownerS’ being labor and the pyramid of owner class juxtaposed to labor. The apples have bit of an alligator texture to the skin - and the oranges have a bit of a crunch.
Every time someone proposes a good idea, the next sentence is, “But we can’t do that here. It’s not possible to do that.” Our country was created on an impossible idea: “Hey, let’s cut loose from Britain and have our own country!” When someone suggests something that would make this country a better place, the next line should not be how impossible it is, but “Okay. How do we make this happen?”
About the 90% tax rate, I read where 8, yes, just 8, people actually paid taxes at that rate, not much redistributing there. On the bright side they did have to invest in American business to get the deductions needed to avoid that tax. I would have no problem with something like that.
Then we have unintended consequences. Remember when executive pay was capped at one million dollars, at least the amount that was deductible as labor to the corporation? Business started offering untaxed stock options which cause CEOs to manipulate stock prices upward just before their options vested. Do you think corporations wont find a way to richly reward their CEOs and still not pay any extra tax?
A small wealth tax could bring in extra money, just do not get to greedy and tank the market as billions of dollars of stock have to be liquidated to pay the tax, thus lowering the riches net worth as well as all the pension funds and municipal investment portfolios.
Actually, the number was closer to about 5,000 (e.g. according to published IRS data in 1958 about 10,000 people paid at the 81% or higher level).